Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 140 (MP)

Saleem Mansoori v. Municipal Corporation

2009-01-28

SANJAY YADAV

body2009
ORDER 1. The petitioners are the occupants of shops situated in Chitranjan Ward at Raddi Chowki, Jabalpur as tenants. The shops are owned by respondent No.3, who owes the liability to pay property tax to the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur which is not paid by him since 1997-98 to 2006-07 which has accumulated to Rs. 53,263/-. The respondent Corporation in order to recover the said amount and in exercise of its power under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'Act of 1956') issued a notice on 10.3.2008 Annexure P-l indicating therein that the shops would be attached and a lock would be put to ensure recovery of the property tax due thereon. In pursuant thereof the shops were locked on 15.3.2008 and given in Supurdanama to respondent No.3 on 15.3.2008, Annexure R-1I5. The locks were, however, directed to be opened by interim order dated 8.4.2008 passed by this Court. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is beyond the powers of the respondent Corporation to effect recovery of dues towards property tax by putting lock on a shop wherein the petitioners are in occupation as tenants. Reliance is placed on the provisions contained under sections 134 and section 141 of the Act of 1956. It is urged that section 134 though empowers the Municipal Corporation to recover tax by one or more of the processes stipulated therein, i.e., by presenting a bill; by serving a written notice of demand; by distraint and sale of movable property of the person concerned; by attachment and sale of his immovable property; in the case of octroi and toll, by the attachment and sale of goods and vehicles; in the case of a suit. It is contended that the property tax, if it is to be recovered from an occupant who" happens to be a tenant can be recovered only by attaching the rent due in respect of the property and by no other mode and certainly not by putting a lock over the property/ shops occupied by the petitioners as tenant. It is contended that the property tax, if it is to be recovered from an occupant who" happens to be a tenant can be recovered only by attaching the rent due in respect of the property and by no other mode and certainly not by putting a lock over the property/ shops occupied by the petitioners as tenant. It is further contended that the foremost liability to pay the property tax is of the owner under section 141 (1) of the Act of 1956 and though sub-section (2) of section 141 empowers the authorities of the respondent-Corporation to recover the property tax charged and levied on the owner may also be recovered from any occupier of the land or building under the circumstances, but the same has to be in accordance with process as is prescribed under section 134 of the Act of 1956. It is averred that since the petitioners are tenants in occupation, the only recourse with the respondent Municipal Corporation to recover the amount due towards property tax by attaching the rent due in respect of said property and not by putting lock over the said property. It is accordingly contended that the action initiated by the respondent-Corporation is de hors the powers vested on them under the Act of 1956. 3. The respondent-Corporation on its turn, however, supports the action initiated to recover the property tax charged and levied on the property belonging to respondent No.3 and it is contended that the property tax is a tax that the Municipal Corporation is empowered .to impose under section 132 (1) (a) of the Act of 1956. Section 134 of the Act provides for different processes, resort can be had one for recovery of the property tax. Sub-section (2) of section 141 empowers the Municipal Corporation to recover the property tax from any occupier of the land or building. It is further contended that section 147 provides that if a person is dissatisfied with the valuation of property tax, he may prefer an objection to the Commissioner and the Commissioner shall deal with the objection under section 148. Section 149 of the Act provides for filing of an appeal to the District Court in case a dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or the principle of assessment for the amount of tax assessed. Section 149 of the Act provides for filing of an appeal to the District Court in case a dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or the principle of assessment for the amount of tax assessed. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, contends that the action as taken by authorities of Municipal Corporation cannot be found fault with, the same being in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1956. 4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions put-forth by respective counsel, the issue wl1ich, crops up for consideration is, whether it is within the power of the 'Municipal Corporation and its authorities to realise the arrears towards property tax from an occupier who happens to be a tenant by fixing a lock on the said premises. 5. For proper appreciation of the aforesaid issue wort it will be to note the relevant provisions as contained in the Act of 1956. Regarding imposition of the property tax and its realization, Part IV Chapter XI of the Act of 1956 deals with taxation. Section 135 provides for imposition of property tax stipulating therein: "135. Imposition of property tax. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the tax under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 132 shall be charged, levied and paid, at the rate not less than six per cent and not more than ten per cent of the annual letting value, as may be determined by the Corporation for each financial year: Provided that if the Corporation fails to determine the rate of the property tax by 31st March the rate as prevailing during the previous financial year shall be deemed to be the rate for current financial year." Section 134 makes a provision regarding recovery of Municipal Tax by one or more of the processes stipulated therein, viz., by presenting a bill; by serving a written notice of demand; by distraint and sale of movable property of the person concerned; by attachment and sale of his immovable property; in the case of octroi and toll, by the attachment and sale of goods and vehicles; in the case of property tax, by the attachment of rent due in respect of the property or by filing a suit. Section 141 of the Act of 1956 provides that the property tax charged and levied upon any land or building under section 135, shall be paid primarily by the owner thereof. Sub-section (2) of section 141, however, empowers the Municipal Corporation to recover even from an occupier. It stipulates that any person so employed shall have power, at all reasonable times and after giving due notice, and on production, if so required of authorization in that behalf from the Commissioner, to enter on, survey and value any land or building within the City which the Commissioner may direct him to survey and value. 6. A close perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that, it is within the power of the Municipal Corporation, to recover the property tax charged and levied on the owner even from the occupier of said premises in the manner and to the extent as is provided in the Act. Whereas, section 134 (6) stipulates that in case of property tax, by the attachment of rent due in respect of the property. A conjoint reading of section 141 (2) and section 134 (6) reveals that the recovery of property tax, if it is to be effected on an occupier who happens to be tenant which can only be by attachment rent due in respect of the said property. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has failed to show any provision which empowers the Municipal Corporation to effect recovery by putting a lock over the property in occupation of a tenant to effect recovery of property tax. 7. Having thus considered, this Court is of the opinion that the action taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation by putting a lock on shops in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant for the purpose of recovery of property tax is without any authority. The said action of respondents is hereby quashed. It will be open for the respondents to effect recovery of property tax, if they so intend, from the petitioner tenants, by attaching the rent due in respect of the said property. 8. In the result the petition is allowed to the extent above. However, no costs.